 |
 |
 |
| |
|
|
Nichols v State
Author:- Sam Biers
Facts: Respondent, was convicted of burglary after he visited a shop and allegedly rigged windows so that it could not be secured 100%. Three pairs of shoes were stolen later on after respondent left.
Issue: Without a showing of physical damage or disturbance was the jury properly instructed on the elements to support a charge of burglary?
Holding: Yes, properly found guilty of burglary.
Ct. Rationale: Merely because the respondent caused the window to remain unsecured supports the breaking requirement of burglary. He possessed the intent to commit felonious actions, broke into the owners’ building, without consent, therefor he is guilty of burglary.